BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.

                                                Complaint No.CC/10/ 888  of 12.10.2010 

                                                Decided on:          19.9.2011

Sarita Jain w/o Sh.A.P.Jain, r/o 339, Dalima Vihar, Rajpura District Patiala.

                                                                             -----------Complainant

                                      Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chief Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

                                                                             ----------Opposite party.

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:     Sh.Y.K.Aggarwal, Advocate

For opposite party:                 Sh.Pawan Puri, Advocate      

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

          The complainant is the holder of the domestic electricity connection bearing account no.P321F280523K. She has been paying the charges of the electricity regularly and nothing was due against her. The complainant is retired professor. She is living with her husband

2.       The Meter Reader of the op demanded Rs.3000/- in the month of May 2010 when he had gone to take the reading. The said amount was demanded by the Meter Reader for his personal needs and he promised to re pay the same within 6 months. The complainant refused to pay the said amount.

3.       Again the Meter Reader raised the said demand of Rs.3000/- in the month of July 2010 when he had come to take the reading. Again the complainant failed to oblige him.

4.       The status of the electricity meter installed out side the house of the complainant has been shown in the bills dated 15.5.2010 and 16.7.2010 as OK.

5.       In the bill dated 10.9.2010, the status of the meter has shown as ‘dead’ and the consumption of the electricity was shown as 1922 units for the period 16.7.2010 to 10.9.2010.

6.       The complainant approached the op for getting the bill corrected and also apprised about the illegal demand of the money by the Meter Reader but to no effect.

7.       It is averred that the complainant has a reasonable apprehension that foul act was played by the officials of the ops in having raised the consumption of 1922 units in the bill dated 10.9.2010.In case the meter had become non functional/dead due to some technical fault, the ops were required to calculate the consumption of the electricity on the basis of the last two or three bills. The average of the electricity is around 55 units for two months. Accordingly the complainant approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short the Act) for  a direction to the op to charge the bill of the electricity dated 10.9.2010 as also the future bills on the basis of the average basis based on 2 or 3 billing cycle and to refund the excess amount deposited by the complainant with interest @12% per annum ; to award her a compensation in a sum of Rs.50.000/- on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the op and further to award her the costs of the litigation at Rs.3500/-.

8.       On notice, the op appeared and filed its written version. It is admitted that the complainant is a consumer of the domestic electricity connection having a sanctioned load of 7.09KW.The electricity is being consumed by the complainant and the members of her family. It is denied if the Meter Reader made any demand of the money from the complainant. The complainant being an educated lady, she should have approached the Sr.Executive Engineer or Assistant Executive Engineer against the Meter Reader. The allegations have been manipulated by the complainant to file a false complaint against the op.

9.       It is denied if the consumption was only 60 units during the period 12.3.2010 to 15.5.2010.The bill was issued as per the monthly minimum charges and not as per the actual consumption. It is also denied if the status of the meter has shown as ‘OK’ during the period 15.5.2010 to 16.7.2010.It is admitted that the status of the meter was shown as ‘D’ during the alleged bi-monthly i.e. for the period 16.7.2010 to 10.9.2010. In fact the bill was issued as per the Electricity Supply Regulations. As per clause 73.1.2 of the Electricity Supply Regulations, when the meter of a consumer is found defective then the consumer is required to be charged on the basis of the average consumption of the last 4-6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or on the basis of the actual consumption recorded, if any, which ever is higher. The meter of the complainant had shown the consumption of 2128 units during the corresponding months of the year 2008-09.Even the consumer had consumed the fallowing units during the period 2009-2010:

i)       June-July              1077 units

ii)      August-September         2191 units

iii)     October-November 1578 units

iv)     February-March      617 units

10.     The meter of the complainant thereafter had become defective and the consumer was being charged on the basis of the monthly minimum charges. The concerned office of the op has raised the demand of the bill as per the average basis and the consumer is liable to pay for the same. The demand pertains to the hottest season i.e. September-October. Even during bi-monthly period September-October 2007-08 the complainant had consumed 1885 units. The complainant might have made a use of more appliances in the house after the year 2007-08.

11.     It is denied if there occurred any foul play on the part of the official of the op. No one can play anything foul as the meter is installed in a meter cup board which is duly sealed with the ME seals as also with the MCB seals. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the op, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.

12.     In support of her complaint, the complainant produced in evidence  her sworn affidavit,Ex.C1, Ex.C2 the sworn affidavit of Bhupinder Kumar alongwith the documents,Exs. C3 to C6 and her learned counsel closed the evidence.

13.     On the other hand, on behalf of the op, it’s learned counsel produced in evidence,Ex.R1, the extract of the Electricity Supply Regulation no.73 and Ex.R2 the consumption data in respect of the account of the complainant and closed its evidence.

14.     The parties failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the evidence on record.

15.     Ex.C5 is the copy of bill no.526 dated 16.7.2010 for the period 15.5.2010 to 16.7.2010 for the consumption of 48 units. Ex.C6, is the copy of the bill no.188 dated 10.9.2010 showing the consumption of 1922 units. The period of the consumption has not  been shown. The reading has been noted as 41343. As a matter of fact the reading 41343 was the last reading in the bill,Ex.C5 dated 16.7.2010 for the period 15.5.2010 to 16.7.2010 meaning thereby that the meter had become defective somewhere after 16.7.2010 and that is why in the bill,Ex.C6, the status of the meter has been noted as ‘D’ denoting defective meter.

16.     It is provided under Regulation 73.1.1 of the Electricity Supply Regulations that, ‘ on receipt of a report regarding the meter becoming defective, dead stop or burnt, it should be immediately replaced and necessary inquiries conducted. The meter alongwith report should be forwarded to Xen/ME for further action.

17.     Regulation 73.1.2 further provides that, ‘ so far as charging the consumer for the period the meter remained in operative is concerned average consumption of last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year or the actual recorded consumption if any whichever is higher shall be compared with the consumption as under and higher of the two figures shall be charged to set the consumer’s account right finally

                                                     CONSUMPTION PER CYCLE

                                                 DS consumers               NRS consumers

1. Up to 2KW load                  100 Units/KW               100Units/KW

2. Exceeding 2 KW and                    200+60 units/KW           200+60 Units/KW  

    Up to 5 KW                           of load in excess of 2KW      of load in excess

                                                                                              of 2KW

3. Load exceeding 5 KW                   380+40 Units/KW                   760+80Units/KW 

                                                   of load in excess of 5KW  of load in excess

                                                                                               of 5KW

 18.    The op has not shown any criteria in having worked out the consumption on average basis as 1922 units in the impugned bill,Ex.C6 dated 10.9.2010.Ex.R2 the table showing the consumption in respect of the electricity account in question does not show the reading of the consumption during the last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year. Therefore, we have not been able to appreciate the average consumption of 1922 units shown in the bill Ex.C6 dated 10.9.2010.

19.     The op has also not got the meter checked from the M.E.Lab to find out the defect in the matter or conducted necessary inquiries in compliance with regulation 73.1.1.We therefore, find the charging of the complainant with 1922 units in respect of the impugned bill dated 10.9.2010 can not be up held. After accepting the complaint we give a direction to the op to charge the complainant for the period the meter remained defective on the basis of the last 4 or 6 months or the average of the same months of the previous year in compliance with regulation 73.1.2 and  then to adjust the amount of the bill after giving a notice to the complainant in the current bills to be issued. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case i.e. the complainant never having made any complaint in writing to the op to do the needful in the matter and rather the complainant having deposited the amount of the bill in question, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Pronounced.

Dated:19.9.2011

                                                Neelam Gupta                  D.R.Arora

                                                Member                            President